Do I understand that we have an agreement and lib code shouldn't be auto loaded? (I'm sorry I didn't read every single msg in the thread)
-Matt On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Michael Klishin < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/11/17 Julian Leviston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I reckon put the option in config. > > Possible? > > It is sure possible technically but if you ask me right now what is > the ugliest piece of code in merb core that > I hate, I'd say all the > dependencies-to-framework-layout-to-boot-sequence parts. Don't get me > wrong, they do not > require you sitting for *hours* to understand and way better thought > out that some other dependencies code that I've seen. > But it's very tricky thing to modify, and it struggles from what I > call "Dell vs. Apple problem": trying to support a lot of 3rd party > code does make things complex, and bundling everything in a single > monolithic package would make certain pieces of > the framework much simpler (but it's never gonna happen to merb). > > I personally would drop almost any feature just to not complicate it > further. If we can explain people how to approach this autoloading > behavior, > it shouldn't be much of a problem. > -- > MK > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
